Hillary Exposed

[seasghost 0]

Yeah this video doesn't alarm me either. No politician is totally morally righteous and scandal free. As much as I have a platonic crush on Obama, I wouldn't be surprised if some attack video came out on him. This video seriously reminded me of like, those Swift Boat ads that came out during the 2004 election saying that Kerry was a war criminal. Those ads were completely unfounded and most people with half a brain knew that. This video isn't a documentary. True documentaries show both sides of a story . This was an attack video. Weather or not half of what Paul claims to have happen actually did, well who knows, there's not proof. He didn't offer any. The only thing that was showed in any detail was the civil lawsuit he filed against the Clintons. Yeah, that doesn't show that he might have an axe to grind.I don't think this video will turn anyone against Senator Clinton. Almost everything Paul claims is circumstancial. Replace the Clinton name with almost any other politician and it would still sound the same.

[NaturalNine 0]

That video requires a leap of faith, maybe a couple.

[Jelly-Filled Ace 1]

Im predicting a Obama squeaker over McCain for the White House. Whats the line?

Odds On: Who will win the 2008 Presidential Election? Hillary Clinton 4/1 John McCain 7/4 Barack Obama 10/13 Mike Huckabee 50/1 Ron Paul 125/1

[MyPlayIsRAB 0]

thanks for posting this video DN... its obviously common knowledge that many govt figures have been involved in corruption, but unforunately theyre the ones in power and us peons cant do anything much to stop them

[MDXS 0]

Jesus....if you think that's bad...take a look at

.

[Nimue1995 1]

[freak2304 0]

Jesus....if you think that's bad...take a look at

.

disappointed I didn't get RickRolled here.....

[Kaveros 0]

What is naive about it? I didn't claim it to be fact or anything like that, it's just an interesting piece, that if accurate, paints Clinton in a negative light as a criminal.

That alone tells me that anyone who wants a fair arguement should not watch it.Meh, will watch when internet is offpeak. Apparently internet poker takes up an outstanding amount of bandwidth.

[checkymcfold 0]

LOL so much@the bit about the judge conspiring with the clintons without even a shred of actual court document evidence.also, LOL@the guy analyzing the "zomg clinton on tape" conversation seems to think he has a ****ing clue about how campaign financing works or the legality of clinton's "involvement" in a fundraising activity for over the 25k stipulated ceiling. quite simply, her getting filled in by an aid/advisor about a fundraiser isn't illegal at all, provided she wasn't engaged with the actual planning of it. the quote, something like "and amy filled me in about everything" doesn't contain ANY evidence to that effect.none of this would even come close to holding up in court. i guess that's why they made a video on teh intarwebz? this is a big problem with internet "alternative" media--because they aren't held to federal regulatory standards, they can just spew totally anecdotal and baseless shit around with literally no consequences. if an internet newstard decides to make a video about clinton being a ho-bag, then puts it on the intarweb, and it turns out she's not a ho-bag, he doesn't get in trouble. if a national news organization does it, someone's head will roll. happened to dan rather not so long ago, yes?but yeah, basically, this little video is just some guy riled up about shit--possibly rightly so, but since he's apparently incapable of offering a damn thing that would even begin to hold up in court, i'm calling whoever made this video a retard. but obv not you, DN, i'm a fanboy! [soapbox]as to the general issue of corrupt politicians, it's a systemic problem that has nothing more to do with the clintons than any other president we've had since nixon. is corruption and money-grabbing a problem with the clintons? of course. is it with the bushes? of course. reagan? of course. carter? yup. etc., etc., etc. singling any one politician for this kind of activity is disingenuous and entirely counterproductive when you're talking about a problem that is at the least widespread (and at worst, universal) throughout politics. i hate when ANY candidate, red or blue, is running for (and functionally, as) whoever gave him/her the most money. unfortunately, that kinda leaves me hating most politicians. we need some serious, sprawling campaign finance reform in the US, hopefully undergone in such a way that ensures that all party candidates are funded equally and without subjugation to a lobbyist's personal philosophy. personally, i think we should all pay a 0.05% tax that goes only toward public funding of ALL potential politicians and do away with private funding altogether to ensure that future elections are won through ideas and not money, but i doubt that would ever fly because so many people are more afraid of taxes than global warming.[/soapbox]

[akoff 0]

Global warming = goodmore taxes = badmaybe a flat 100.00 per person but i am tired of paying taxes based on income...flat tax is the way to go!!

[nutzbuster 7]

Here is a list of the Democratic Superdelegates who have not yet endorsed either candidate:To Nutz: so who's the shining example of moral rectitude on the Republican side? Huckabee, who listed himself on a wedding registry 30 years after his marriage, so that he and his wife could collect tens of thousands of dollars worth of gifts from lobbyists to decorate their new home, and who smashed the hard drives of every computer in the Governor's office on his last day, so that nobody could ever see what was on them? Or McCain, who was one of the Keating Five and took a bribe as a sitting senator, resulting in a motion of censure from his colleagues? These are plain, verifiable facts, unlike the innuendo and dark hints and "we heard stories" that make up so much of the "evidence" against the Clintons.

Never said nor implied there was/is one.All I know is the Clintons.....and their record of deceit and deceptions is E P I C.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Never said nor implied there was/is one.All I know is the Clintons.....and their record of deceit and deceptions is E P I C.

Meh, the only verifiable fact, after a massive investigation and millions of taxpayer dollars, was that Bill was a horndog, and we all knew that from the get-go.What I'm wondering is why nobody is saying out loud what is obviously happening on the Republican side. Here's John McCain. He's a legitmate war hero, a campaign-finance crusader, and a big fat thorn in the side to the Republican establishment every presidential election year. Then there's George W. Bush, worst president ever, a walking disaster. Turnout on the Republican side in the primaries has been abysmal, less than half the Dems' turnout. Republicans KNOW they are going to lose the 2008 election; the only question is how badly.Nothing destroys a politician's power base like losing a presidential election. Walter Mondale? Dukakis? Goldwater? George Wallace? Nobody would even admit knowing these guys.So who BETTER to nominate this year than McCain? He'll go down in defeat, his power over the media will be crippled, and he'll no longer bother the GOP when there's a real contest at stake.It's sheer genius. McCain's being played for a fool, but is so blinded by White House ambition that he doesn't see it. The far-right wingnuts are being played for fools, because they will continue to believe that if only the candidate had been more of a loony zealot they might have won in '08, and they never have to face the fact that their schtick has worn thin with the majority of voters. Pundits like Annie "the tranny" Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are being played for fools, because that's what they already are. And those few lonely souls who actually want to elect a philosoophical Republican are being played for fools.It's a brilliant strategy. Too bad nobody seems to know it's going on.

[Balloon guy 158]

Hillary Clinton will take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote, but persuades enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention, her campaign advisers say.The New York senator, who lost three primaries Tuesday night, now lags slightly behind her rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, in the delegate count. She is even further behind in “pledged’’ delegates, those assigned by virtue of primaries and caucuses. But Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton’s communications director, Howard Wolfson.

In other words, Hillary will probably steal the nomination during the convention regardless of the vote of the people. This has been done before during the Mondale nomination.I am sooooo looking forward to the day when the democrats stop making excuses for how the Clintons steal, lie and manipulate for nothing but personal gain.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

As Checky wisely said, EVERY politician, both sides, is in it for personal gain -- it's built into the current system.However, repeating assertions of Clintonian corruption a billion times doesn't make it true. They went through a ten-year, taxpayer-financed series of special investigations and prosecutions managed by their worst enemies, and the only legally actionable thing they could find was a freakin' blowjob. That's it. Could Dubya's many daddy-aided (not to mention Saudi-aided) business deals in Texas withstand ten years' worth of Democratic scrutiny? Could his decade or so of coke snorting? Hell, could YOUR life and tax returns withstand it?Okay, the Clintons are ambitious -- Macbeth-level ambitious. That's why I didn't vote for her. Any maybe they're just really, really good at getting away with stuff. But that would only prove that they're a lot smarter than the Republicans chasing them. The fact remains that they're one of the most thoroughly investigated couples in political history, and the investigations came up very nearly empty. You got evidence? Tell it to Ken Starr.

[brvheart 1,752]

Meh, the only verifiable fact, after a massive investigation and millions of taxpayer dollars, was that Bill was a horndog, and we all knew that from the get-go.What I'm wondering is why nobody is saying out loud what is obviously happening on the Republican side. Here's John McCain. He's a legitmate war hero, a campaign-finance crusader, and a big fat thorn in the side to the Republican establishment every presidential election year. Then there's George W. Bush, worst president ever, a walking disaster. Turnout on the Republican side in the primaries has been abysmal, less than half the Dems' turnout. Republicans KNOW they are going to lose the 2008 election; the only question is how badly.Nothing destroys a politician's power base like losing a presidential election. Walter Mondale? Dukakis? Goldwater? George Wallace? Nobody would even admit knowing these guys.So who BETTER to nominate this year than McCain? He'll go down in defeat, his power over the media will be crippled, and he'll no longer bother the GOP when there's a real contest at stake.It's sheer genius. McCain's being played for a fool, but is so blinded by White House ambition that he doesn't see it. The far-right wingnuts are being played for fools, because they will continue to believe that if only the candidate had been more of a loony zealot they might have won in '08, and they never have to face the fact that their schtick has worn thin with the majority of voters. Pundits like Annie "the tranny" Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are being played for fools, because that's what they already are. And those few lonely souls who actually want to elect a philosoophical Republican are being played for fools.It's a brilliant strategy. Too bad nobody seems to know it's going on.

nope.Also, I love your theory that every republican voting in the primaries and caucuses across the country were in on some big conspricacy to nominate McCain so that he won't bother us in the future. Seriously... the Democrat mind is amazingly stupid.

[Balloon guy 158]

As Checky wisely said

First, don't do this

, EVERY politician, both sides, is in it for personal gain -- it's built into the current system.However, repeating assertions of Clintonian corruption a billion times doesn't make it true. They went through a ten-year, taxpayer-financed series of special investigations and prosecutions managed by their worst enemies, and the only legally actionable thing they could find was a freakin' blowjob. That's it. Could Dubya's many daddy-aided (not to mention Saudi-aided) business deals in Texas withstand ten years' worth of Democratic scrutiny? Could his decade or so of coke snorting? Hell, could YOUR life and tax returns withstand it?Okay, the Clintons are ambitious -- Macbeth-level ambitious. That's why I didn't vote for her. Any maybe they're just really, really good at getting away with stuff. But that would only prove that they're a lot smarter than the Republicans chasing them. The fact remains that they're one of the most thoroughly investigated couples in political history, and the investigations came up very nearly empty. You got evidence? Tell it to Ken Starr.

I forget the number but I believe it was 12 people went to prison directly because of the Ken Starr investigations. Bill escaping the noose was largely due to the same reasons he was called Slick Willy in Little Rock. the name Slick Willy came from a democrat, not the RNC

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Not that every voter is in a conspiracy, just that McCain has always shown up and done well in early primaries, only to face an ultimately fatal backlash from within the party. In 2000 the RNC supported push polling in South Carolina designed to throw cold water on his momentum. They're apparently not doing that this year. I don't think it's a conspiracy to get McCain the nomination, just that the party leaders are sitting back and allowing it without the same resistance they've shown in years past. Once McCain made a strong showing and got momentum behind him, they could have intervened behind the scenes to pay for ads or push polling or strengthen another candidate's standing, and they didn't. I think they expect it to play out the way I outlined, and realized that it wasn't a total loss for them this way.Balloon Guy, you're right that twelve or so other people went to jail. There were laws broken, but the very best efforts of Republicans could never prove that the Clintons broke those laws (except for the bj). Like I said, I guess they're just smarter than the people chasing them. Of course he's slick, but complaining about that is just sour grapes. And I've called you wise, too -- namely the quote from you about being giving that Nutzbuster uses in his sig file.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

Hillary exposed

[Balloon guy 158]

Not to say that the Clintons may be behind this but:

Mystery: NY Results Say Obama Got Zero Votes In 80 DistrictsNY Times | Sam Roberts | February 16, 2008 04:20 PM Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlem's 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama.That anomaly was not unique. In fact, a review by The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the city's 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district.

Probably nothing

[Balloon guy 158]

And I want to make it clear that I do not support any rumor mongering that uses dirt to try to get people to dislike a candidate.Like this story: Hillary's lesbian Muslim loverI mean come on, so what if she's a muslim, from Saudi.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

Not to say that the Clintons may be behind this but:Probably nothing

Those are the smart districts.See...McCain is behind this because he wants Hillary to get the Democratic nomination because there's no way in hell she could beat him.

[hblask 1]

EDIT: Nevermind, this proxy mangled my post...

[hblask 1]

And I want to make it clear that I do not support any rumor mongering that uses dirt to try to get people to dislike a candidate.Like this story: Hillary's lesbian Muslim loverI mean come on, so what if she's a muslim, from Saudi.

So what you are saying is that if Hillary is elected, we have spend the next four years hearing about this woman having hot lesbian sex? Hmm, I may have to reconsider my political views.....

[Nimue1995 1]

So what you are saying is that if Hillary is elected, we have spend the next four years hearing about this woman having hot lesbian sex?

It would serve Bill right wouldn't it?

[Southern Buddhist 1]

I'm not saying the Post Chronicle looks like the most trusted news source on Earth, but it would be pretty sweet if Hillary were nailing hotter women than Bill. +1 to them for using "Gayle King" as a verb. Looks like we got us another Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt! Yep, us Democrats are a kinky bunch. Always have been, always will be. And you Republicans are jealous. [Don't feel bad -- you'll always have J. Edgar Hoover in a girdle.]